ACIT, New Delhi V. Indraprastha Cancer Society and Research Centre, New Delhi

ITA 641/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0729 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 03-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K SAROHA
• Assessee Lawyers: SHAILENDER K BAJAJ
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Charitable institution; Question of law; Bad and doubtful debts; Capital expenditure
• Section: 12A; 12AA; 73; 13; 28; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI C BEN CH, NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 641/DEL/2017 [A.Y 2012-13] THE A.C.I.T [E] VS. INDRAPRASTHA CANCER SOCIETY & CIRCLE 1(1) RESEARCH CENTER NEW DELHI C/O RAJIV GANDHI CANCER INSTITUTE D 18, SECTOR 5, ROHINI NEW DELHI PAN: AAATI 0440 C (APPLICANT) ( RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SHAILEND ER K. BAJAJ DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI A.K. SAROHA, CIT- DR DATE OF HEARING : 18.12.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2 3.12.2019 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, WITH THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE CO RRECTNESS OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [APPEALS] - 40, NEW DELHI DATED 17.11.2016 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2 2. THE SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCES OF THE REVENUE READ A S UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACT THE ASSESSES LIKE CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS ARE GOVERNED B Y ALMOST THE SEPARATE OR INDEPENDENT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11,12 ,12, 12AA &13 AND THESE PROVISIONS ARE INDEPENDENT CODE IN ITSELF IN CHAPTER III OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE INCOME AND EXP ENDITURE IS COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES AND THE DEDICATION IS ALLOWED OF THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE INCLUDING THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE FOR P URCHASE AND DEDUCTION IS ALLOWED OF THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE INCL UDING THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE FOR PURCHASE OF CAPITAL ASSETS U/S 11(1). 2. ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACT THE SECTIONS 28 TO 44 OF THE I.T. ACT WHICH ARE RELATED TO BUSINESS ACTIV ITIES ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION A ND HENCE, PROVISIONS ON ACCOUNT OF BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS ARE NOT DEDUCTIBLE. 3 3. ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACT THE SECTIONS 45 TO 58 OF THE I.T. ACT WHICH ARE RELATED TO BUSINESS ACTIVITI ES ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION AN D HENCE, CLAIM REGARDING LOSS ON SALE OF FIXED ASSETS IS NOT ALLOW ABLE AS APPLICATION OF INCOME. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS REGISTERED U/S 12A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 [HER EINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT'] SINCE 01.04.2007 AND IS ALSO GRANTED EXE MPTION U/S 10(23)(VIA) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS ALSO NOTIFIED U/S 35(1)(II) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS ENGAGED IN RUNNING A HOSPIT AL IN THE NAME OF RAJIV GANDHI CANCER INSTITUTE & RESEARCH CENTRE AT ROHINI , DELHI. THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY ARE COVERED WITH IN THE MEANING OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE AS DEFINED U/S 2(15) OF THE AC T. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS FOR TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF RS. 10.62 CRORES AS APPLICATION OF INCOME OUT OF TOTAL APPLICATION OF INCOME OF RS. 1,43,10,87,160/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS 4 OF THE OPINION THAT THE BENEFIT OF APPLICATION OF F UND HAS ALREADY BEEN CLAIMED WHEN THE FIXED ASSETS WERE ACQUIRED. THEREF ORE, ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE DEDUCTION AND, ACCORDINGLY, DENIED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. 5. PROCEEDING FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS OF RS. 20. 11 LAKHS AND BAD DEBTS OF RS. 9.91 LAKHS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF TH E OPINION THAT BAD DEBTS ACTUALLY WRITTEN OFF HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE DE TERMINING THE INCOME U/S 11 OF THE ACT. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AS SESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT CLARIFIED THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND EFFORTS MADE TO REALIZE THE D EBTS. FURTHER, PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 28 TO 44 OF THE ACT, WHICH A RE RELATED TO BUSINESS ACTIVITIES ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF CHARIT ABLE ORGANIZATIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ACCORDINGLY, DISALLOWED THE PROV ISION OF DOUBTFUL DEBT OF RS. 20.11 LAKHS AND BAD DEBT OF RS. 9.91 LAKHS. 5 7. PROCEEDING STILL FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED LOSS ON SALE OF FIXED ASSETS O F RS. 20.40 LAKHS WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO JU STIFY ITS CLAIM. 8. IN ITS REPLY, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE LOSS ON SALE OF FIXED ASSET HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE SOCIETY WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME ON COMMERCIAL PRINCIPALS AND FILED DETAILS OF LOSS OF SALE OF FIXED ASSETS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAIN STATED THAT PROVISIONS OF S ECTIONS 28 TO 44 OF THE ACT WHICH ARE RELATED TO BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AND SE CTIONS 45 TO 55 OF THE ACT WHICH ARE RELATED TO CAPITAL GAIN ARE NOT APPLI CABLE IN THE CASE OF CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF LOSS OF RS. 20.40 LAKHS. 9. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. C IT(A) AND REITERATED ITS CLAIM OF ALLOWABILITY. 10. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS, TH E LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT HIS PREDECESSOR, IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, H AS DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FOLLOWI NG THE FINDINGS OF HIS PREDECESSOR, DELETED ALL THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6 7. BEFORE US, THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE FIN DINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. PER CONTRA, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FUR NISHED COPIES OF ORDER OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CA SE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07, 2009-10 AND 2010-11. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT ALL THESE ISSUES HAVE BEEN DECIDE D BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. 9. THE LD. DR COULD NOT BRING ANY DISTINGUISHING DE CISION IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. 10. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUT HORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DECISIONS OF THE CO-ORDI NATE BENCH. IN SO FAR AS THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION IS CONCERNED, THE TRIB UNAL IN ITA NO. 2555/DEL/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 HAD CONSI DERED A SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE. THE ISSUES BEFORE THE CO-ORDINATE BE NCH WERE AS UNDER: 7 '1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT (A) - XXI HAS ERRED BOTH IN FACTS AND IN LAW WHILE SU STAINING THE DISALLOWANCE, MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, OF DEP RECIATION OF RS. 6,52,45,727/- FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING INC OME OF THE APPELLANT SOCIETY UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN FACTS AND IN LAW BY SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER OF PROVISION FOR BAD DEBTS OF RS.12,74,419/- CLAIMED W HILE DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE SOCIETY ON COMMERCIAL PRINCIPLES OF THE APPELLANT SOCIETY UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED BOTH IN FACTS AND IN L AW WHILE SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE , MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER , OF THE LOSS ON SALE OF CAPITAL ASSETS OF RS. 6,92,232/ - WHILE DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT SOCIETY UND ER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. 4. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) - XXI IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD , DELETE OR AMEND ANY OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DISPOSAL O F THE PRESENT APPEAL.' 8 11. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH READ AS UNDER: 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO PE RUSED MATERIAL ON RECORD. ALTHOUGH, THE LD. SR. D.R. HAS ARGUED VEHEMENTLY AGAINST THE TWO ISSUES UNDER CHALLENGE, SHE WAS NOT ABLE TO NEGATE THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE OF DEPRE CIATION IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSES SEE'S OWN CASE BY THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COU RT IN CASE OF DIT(E) VS. INDRAPRASTHA CANCER SOCIETY (SUP RA). IN THE SAID JUDGEMENT THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS DULY NOTED THAT INSERTION OF SUB-SECTION (6) TO SECTION 11 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN INSERTED W.E.F. 01ST APRIL, 2015 ONLY AND, THEREFORE, THE LEGAL POSITION WOULD UNDERGO A CHANG E AND WILL BE APPLICABLE W.E.F. 1ST APRIL, 2015 ONLY AND WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE TO EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. SINCE THE P RESENT APPEAL BEFORE US PERTAINS TO THE A.Y. 2010-11, THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUD GEMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE AS AFORESAID. THUS, WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN ALLOWING GROUND NO.1 OF ASSESSEE'S APPEAL. 5.1 COMING TO GROUND NO. 2, WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESS EE BY THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F 9 DIT(E) VS. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOFTWARE AND SER VICES COMPANIES (SUPRA). THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE JUDG EMENT, AS CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH 40 OF THE SAID JUDGEMENT, IS BEING REPRODUCED FOR A READY REFERENCE. '40. AS REGARDS THE PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS, THE QUESTION AGAIN IS WHETHER IN COMPUTING T HE INCOME OF THE TRUST ON COMMERCIAL PRINCIPLES, THE PROVISION CAN BE DEDUCTED OR WHERE THE DEDUCTION CA N BE ALLOWED ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 36(I)(VII) READ WITH SECTION 36(2)(I)OF THE ACT. WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT THE INCOME OF THE TRUST AVAILABLE FOR APPLICATION TO CHARITABLE PURPOSES IN INDIA SHOULD BE COMPUTED NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STRIC T PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BUT SHOULD BE COMPUTED IN ITA NO.2555/DEL/2015 A.Y.:2010-11 INDRAPRASTHA CANCER SOCIETY AND RESEARCH CENTRE VS. ITO(EXEMPTIONS) ACCORDANCE WITH COMMERCIAL PRINCIPLES AND IT IS ON THIS FOOTING THAT THE PAYME NT OF INCOME TAX ACT UNDER THE VDIS WAS TREATED AS A DEDUCTION AND AS PROPER APPLICATION OF THE INCOME O F THE TRUST. THE SAME LINE OF REASONING HOLDS GOOD FO R 10 THE PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS. EVEN UNDE R THE COMPUTATION PROVISION OF THE ACT SUCH A PROVISI ON WAS CONSIDERED ALLOWABLE UP TO AND INCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1988-89 AND IT WAS ONLY FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1989-90 THAT THE ACT REQUIRED THAT A MERE PROVISION WOULD NOT BE ALLOWABLE AS A DEDUCTIO N AND THE ACTUAL WRITING OFF OF THE DEBT WAS A NECESS ARY PRE-CONDITION. BE THAT AS IT MAY, UNDER THE COMMERC IAL PRINCIPLES IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT A PROVISION, REASONABLY MADE FOR A LOSS OR AN OUTGOIN G, CAN BE DEDUCTED FROM THE INCOME IF THERE IS APPREHENSION THAT THE DEBT MIGHT BECOME BAD. THERE IS NOTHING BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE PROVISION WAS NOT MADE BONAFIDE. IN SUCH A SITUATIO N, THE RATIO OF THE DECISIONS CITED BY US WHILE DEALIN G WITH THE DEDUCTIBILITY OF THE TAXES PAID UNDER THE VDIS WILL EQUALLY APPLY. WE ACCORDINGLY HOLD THAT W HILE COMPUTING THE INCOME AVAILABLE TO THE TRUST FOR APPLICATION TO CHARITABLE PURPOSES IN INDIA IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 11(1)(A) THE PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS MUST BE DEDUCTED. ACCORDINGLY, WE FRAME THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AND 11 ANSWER THE SAME IN THE AFFIRMATIVE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE: - 'WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN HOLDING T HAT THE PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS MUST BE DEDUCTED FROM THE ITA NO.2555/DEL/2015 A.Y.:2010-11 INDRAPRASTHA CANCER SOCIETY AND RESEARCH CENTRE VS. ITO(EXEMPTIO NS) INCOME OF THE TRUST ON COMMERCIAL PRINCIPLES, FOR T HE PURPOSES OF SECTION 11(1)(A) OF THE ACT?' 5.2 IN VIEW OF THE RATIO OF JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE DE LHI HIGH COURT AS REPRODUCED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH, IT IS OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS ISSUE ALSO IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY WE ALLOW GROUND NO.2 O F ASSESSEE'S APPEAL. 5.3 AS THE LD.AR HAS SUBMITTED T HAT GROUND NO.3 IS NOT BEING PRESSED IN VIEW OF HUGE AC CUMULATED LOSSES, THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS 'NOT PRESSED'. 5.4 GROUND NOS. 4 AND 5 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND H ENCE THE SAME ARE NOT BEING ADJUDICATED UPON. 12 12. IN ITA NO. 2607/DEL/2013, THE ISSUES UNDER CONS IDERATION WERE DECIDED AS UNDER: 5. GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 OF REVENUES APPEAL IS IN RESP ECT OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON THE ASSETS PURC HASED BY THE ASSESSEE BY APPLICATION OF FUNDS. LEARNED CIT(A ) DELETED THE SAME BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE H ONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VISHWA JAG RITI MISSION, 73 DTR (DEL)195. IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AL SO, HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN DIT VS INDRAPR ASTHA CANCER SOCIETY, ITA NO.240/2014 ORDER DATED 18.11.2 014 CONSIDERED THE QUESTION WHETHER AFTER CLAIMING DEDU CTION IN RESPECT OF THE COST OF THE ASSETS U/S 35(1) OF THE ACT, ASSESSEE AGAIN CLAIMED DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF DEPR ECIATION IN RESPECT OF THE SAME ASSET. HONBLE JURISDICTIONA L HIGH COURT HELD THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE BINDING PRECEDENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH CO URT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY UNREASONABL ENESS IN THE ORDER OF THE ID. CIT(A). WE, THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE ID. CIT(A) AND DISMISS GROUND NOS. 1 & 2. 13 6. GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO THE DELETION OF RS.2,14,3 10/- ADDED BY DISALLOWING THE LOSS ON SALE OF ASSETS. PL EA OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSETS WERE SOLD AT A PRICE LE SSER THAN THE WDV OF THE ASSETS AND WHEN THE DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWED FOLLOWING THE COMMERCIAL PRINCIPLE, THERE IS NO BAR TO CONSIDER THE LOSS AND THE LEARNED AO COMMITTED ERRO R IN TAKING THE SALE PROCEEDS AS INCOME AND IGNORING THE LOSS. ON THIS ASPECT, LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AND SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD DEMO NSTRATE THAT THE INCOME U/S 11 HAD TO BE DETERMINED ON COMM ERCIAL PRINCIPLES. WE ARE ALSO OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION T HAT THE INCOME U/S 11 HAS TO BE DETERMINED ON COMMERCIAL PR INCIPLES AND TO DETERMINE THE SAME, THE LOSSES ARISING ON SA LE OF ASSETS OF THE SOCIETY SHALL BE CONSIDERED. THEREFOR E, THE CAPITAL LOSS OF RS.2,14,310/- HAS TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE CALCULATING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WITH THIS V IEW OF THE MATTER, WE UPHOLD THE FINDING OF THE ID. CIT(A) ON THIS GROUND AND DISMISS GROUND NO.3. 13. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE FINDINGS OF THE CO-O RDINATE BENCH, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE STAND DISMISSED. 14 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 641/DEL/2017 IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.12. 2019. SD/- SD/- [ SUSHMA CHOWLA ] [N.K. BILLAIYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 23 RD DECEMBER, 2019 VL/ COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI 15 DATE OF DICTATION DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER